JUDGMENT N.K. PATIL, J.—Though this matter is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 15thJanuary, 2009, passed in M.V.C. No. 7787/2007, by the XII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 10.00 Lakhs, is inadequate. 3. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the minor children and claimant No. 5 is the mother of the deceased Late Jabaseelan. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 5.20 a.m., on 10.8.2007, when the deceased was riding Moped on the left side of Nrupathunga Road near K.R. Circle., Bangalore, he met with an accident on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus bearing No. KA-01/F-1817. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and died in the Hospital, after taking some treatment. 4. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 38 years and a vegetable vendor by profession, earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is their further case that the deceased was the only source of livelihood and the entire family was dependent on him and that on account of his untimely death, the family has become haywire and they have lost the social and financial security in their life and, therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 5. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 15th January, 2009. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel appearing for second respondent / Insurer, for quite some time. 7. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/ - per month. He submits that the Tribunal, having regard to the number of dependents and the year of accident, ought to have taken higher income and deducted l/4th towards his personal expenses having regard to the number of dependents and adopted multiplier of ‘15’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified accordingly. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer submits that the Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful, perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for my consideration in this appeal is as to: “Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?” It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 38 years and doing vegetable vending business. The appellants have stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, without producing any documentary evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, disbelieving the same, has assessed his notional income at a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. I am of the view that, the same is inadequate and needs to be re-assessed. Having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident and also the number of dependents, I re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- and deduct l/4th towards his personal expenses since the number of dependents, are five. 3,000/- per month. I am of the view that, the same is inadequate and needs to be re-assessed. Having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident and also the number of dependents, I re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- and deduct l/4th towards his personal expenses since the number of dependents, are five. Further, since the deceased was aged about 38 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘15’, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Accordingly, if 1/4th, (i.e., Rs. 1,000/-) is deducted from Rs. 4,000/-, the net income comes of Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-, adopting the multiplier of ‘15’, I award, a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/-, (i.e., Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x ‘15’) towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 3,36,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 10. Further, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs. 45,000/-towards conventional heads, viz. loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 44,000/-awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 5,85,000/- as against Rs. 3,80,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th January, 2009, passed in M.V.C. No. 7787/ 2007. by the XII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,05.000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. 12. The second respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. 13. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, (i.e., Rs. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 12. The second respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. 13. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, (i.e., Rs. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/-) with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the names of each of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4/minor children of the deceased in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, till they attain the age of majority, with liberty reserved to the first appellant, mother and guardian to withdraw the periodical interest, for their welfare. 14. Remaining sum of Rs. 85,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 5, in equal proportion, immediately. 15. Office to draw award, accordingly.